Quarks have the same sort of mixing as neutrinos. The only real difference is that the low mass and small couplings of neutrinos make it much easier for us to think about neutrinos in terms of flavor states (i.e. electron, muon, and tau neutrinos) rather than mass states, which is what we're pretty much forced to use for quarks. Anyway, neutrino mixing is totally consistent with relativity; and, in fact, almost required for massive neutrinos in quantum field theory. The only reason it was a surprising result in the first place is that there had been no previous evidence that neutrinos have mass. Superluminal neutrinos, on the other hand, are really not consistent with existing theories; so, they are, quite rightly, taken with a great deal of skepticism, at least until independently confirmed, or until all possible sources of systematic errors that could mimic the effect are ruled out.

I think you mean "flavor." Chirality is just one basis that happens to be particularly useful in talking about spin. It has nothing to do with the 3 types of neutrinos.

Whomever wrote that was talking out of, err, where the photons don't shine. Just like they don't shine through 730 km of solid rock. The experiment compares the measured neutrino speed with the previously known speed of light. It's not performed as a race between photons and neutrinos.

Two problems. First, how do you arrange for that difference? Second, what about the neutrinos on the leading edge?

That would involve a longer path length than the neutrinos traveled. So, no go there.

I think the actual number is more like a little under 4 years. Either way, though, two of the three detectors that detected the SN1987A burst were operating during that time period. A more important point, though, is the sheer improbability of those three experiments detecting 24 neutrinos in a span of 13 seconds. The detection at KamiokaNDE alone had a probability of occurring randomly of no greater than 0.00000057%.

How do they both know a priori that the particles they're measuring are entangled? Put another way, the only information that exists in this problem is the fact that the particles are entangled and the state that one of them ends up in. For such a situation to allow superluminal communication, it would be necessary that one of these pieces of information be able to be chosen by Alice or Bob. But, the fact that they both know about the entanglement to begin with means that information is only transferred if an experimenter can pick which state her particle ends up in, which isn't possible in the sort of measurements which won't break the entanglement.

That would be a fair point, except that the issue here isn't how well you can measure a time interval at one location. The issue is how well you can synchronize two clocks which are situated 730 km apart. GPS is actually a pretty good way of doing this because both labs can receive signals sent from some subset of the GPS satellites at any given time, giving a common reference. The actual time measurements are performed with atomic clocks at each end.

Again, no. The relationship between an object's invariant mass and its "relativistic mass" (which, again, is really just another way of saying "energy") in a particular frame is really quite simple:

m = m_0/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}

It has nothing to do with the power necessary to accelerate to a given speed, and it rises at exactly the rate I indicated.

Now, if you want to talk total power consumption, you need to know the energy to mass ratio of any fuel you need to carry, just as you would for a totally classical rocket. But, frankly that's an unnecessary complication since we could just as easily talk about a system that needs to carry no fuel - a solar sail, for instance.

The fact that the invariant mass of a proton is not the sum of the invariant masses of its constituent quarks (or even, their combined invariant mass) isn't really relevant here. It's just as meaningful to talk about the invariant mass of the proton (which is also a scalar) as it is to talk about the invariant mass of an electron or the invariant mass of an astronaut. The physical origin of that mass (the Higgs mechanism, QCD binding energy, or, for that matter, any other kind of binding energy or internal kinetic energy) doesn't really affect anything about how it is most reasonable to look at the full system. (As a side note, I don't think you mean "quark-gluon plasma." That's a high energy phase of matter created the presence of unconfined quarks and gluons. What you're talking about here is simply QCD binding energy.)

Sorry, no. First, most physicists nowadays don't talk about mass increasing with speed. Mass in that sense is really just energy (divided by c^2). It's much more meaningful to talk about invariant mass (also called "rest mass", since it is unambiguously the mass the object has as measured in the frame of reference where it's at rest) in pretty much any context where mass, rather than energy, is relevant. But, even ignoring that, your math is wrong. Using the interpretation that mass increases with speed, an object traveling at .5% of c will have a mass increase of about .00125%. An object traveling at 50% of c will have a mass increase of about 15.5%, and an object traveling at 95% of c will have a mass increase of 220% (so, it will be 3.2 times heavier than at rest). Furthermore, it takes no energy expenditure at all to continue moving at a constant speed. You only need to expend energy to change your speed (or direction).

Not even close. Every time there is even the slightest hint of a signal that might be an indication of physics outside that which is already confirmed to be true (even when those hints don't even come close to sufficient statistical significance to believe) there will be a burst of several dozen new theory papers proposing models to explain the effect on the off chance that it might turn out to be true. The thing is, if you're a theorist, you want to be the first to come up with the ideas that end up getting confirmed; and, usually, to do that, you also end up proposing a whole bunch of ideas that turn out to be wrong. The point is, most supposed anomalous measurements really do turn out to either be statistical fluctuations that go away as you collect more data, or systematic effects that turn out to be correctly explained in terms of properties of the experimental apparatus or mistakes in the data analysis.

The total cost of the LHC (which is shared among something like 25 countries) is about 2 years worth of US tax subsidies for oil companies.

While it's probably possible to create the Higgs at the Tevatron, it's not necessarily detectible. The problem is that, at certain mass ranges (like the most likely remaining one between 115 Gev and 145 GeV) the dominant Higgs decay signals have huge backgrounds to contend with; and, the Tevatron will simply not have enough data to say anything about possible excesses in that range. Also, the fact that the proton/antiproton collisions at the Tevatron occur at 2 TeV does not actually mean that physics up to 2 TeV is accessible there. The problem is that protons are composite particles and physically interesting high energy processes are actually the result of collisions between the constituents of the (anti)protons (collectively, these constituents are termed "partons"). Since each (anti)proton has >3 partons (the actual number is indeterminate, but necessarily no smaller than 3), the parton involved in the collision will almost certainly have significantly less than the (anti)proton's total energy.

At the point when that whole range has been ruled out. Presently, there is still a window from about 115 GeV to 145 GeV that has not yet been excluded (and, for the most part, was not expected to be able to be excluded yet).